Did Harper go soft(wood)?

[SeleucusNicator]

Comments like that are why the US is disliked around the world. If you give your word on an agreement and fail to live up to it in the future, why would anyone make an agreement with you in the future?

Because they realize that it would be rational for us to abide by the agreement for some amount of time, due to the agreement being in our interest.

 

[Uiler]

Sure the US can welch on its agreements and drive unfair bargains whenever it wants.

However, everytime they do so they drive up resentment and hatred against them from the people they betray. Of course then later on Americans will whinge about how "irrational" the anti-American comments that the people they betrayed make. "How can *anyone* resent us? We're the good guys. You guys are just jealous."

You don't get anything for free. Everything comes at a cost.

The other cost is that why should anyone (*cough* *cough* China) take America's calls for free trade seriously?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

The other cost is that why should anyone (*cough* *cough* China) take America's calls for free trade seriously?

Again, breaking agreements that are no longer in your interest does not make you a less reliable partner, because, as long as you are rational, your behavior can still be predicted.

 

[Uiler]

Again, breaking agreements that are no longer in your interest does not make you a less reliable partner, because, as long as you are rational, your behavior can still be predicted.

You don't get what I am saying. Your trustworthiness or otherwise is only *one* of the costs. Breaking agreements:

1. Leads to resentment and even hatred amongst those you victimise. The number of people affected can be small and it will still lead to hatred. People *hate* the idea of being bullied and treated unjustly.
2. Reduces your leverage if you want to try to persuade other parties to give up similar bad behaviour. You look like a hypocrite.
3. The undermining of the institute monitoring the agreement. What if *you* want to use it in the future for *your* benefit. You've just reduced the credibility of said institute to rubbles. It's a useless tool now.

Breaking agreements come with many many costs. That's why smart people only do it if it is really really really worth while. I don't see protecting a small out-of-date industry which employs a minute fraction of the population and generates a minute proportion of the economy as that important a thing to greatly lower relations ne of your most important neighbours who supplies a large fraction of your oil, destroying a useful tool (NAFTA) and undermining your global ability to pressure people on free-trade and of course getting people to distrust you.

As for your so-called "rational" stance, I bet if the shoe was on the other foot and agreements were being broken which hurt the US Americans would be whinging about how unfair it is and calling for sanctions and intervention and act generally pissed off. Oh wait, they are *already* doing that with respect to China. Americans are no more able to "deal with it" than anyone else in the world. In fact Americans are even worse than most people because for some strange reason they have this idea that people should play "fair" even though they never do so themselves. They can't even deal with the idea of guerilla warfare well whinging about how "unfair" it is.

It is partly Canada's own fault though for being such pushovers. If you don't want to be bullied then do something about it. Use America's weak point - oil. Threaten to abandon NAFTA entirely. Go outside of NAFTA. "OK, since you don't think NAFTA is worth a ****, neither do we" and do things that NAFTA doesn't allow. What's America going to do since they are blatantly ignoring NAFTA? Go to NAFTA and whinge about it? Then say, "OK we'll follow the NAFTA ruling when YOU do." Make a case that you are sick of being bullied to gain the higher moral ground and embarass the US. The US *does* need Canada. You guys do have a certain amount of leverage. America's not going to invade you if you stand up for yourselves. Another weak point is that Americans like to see themselves as the "good guys". If you can embarass America enough they will give in. Use emotional blackmail.

 

[Alvaro da Luna]

Again, breaking agreements that are no longer in your interest does not make you a less reliable partner, because, as long as you are rational, your behavior can still be predicted.

If two nations already possesed the same stance it would tend to make treaties redundant, except possibly as a form of book-keeping. Agreements are much more than that, they're like binding contracts, which both parties have the moral priviledge to uphold - not because there is some abstract geopolitical morality we are required to uphold as good samaritans, but because evidence of past cooperation is the only solid empirical evidence of mutual trust leading to the possibility of future cooperation. History has shown us that except in rare extremes, no one nation can stand alone and every nation requires cooperation to survive. If you seriously believe that the USA can go this route, then I applaud your conviction but not your naivety. I happen to believe this is the most realistic approach to the question.

Edit. Businesses that have been wronged too many times by a nation will probably seek trade elsewhere. In Canada, there is already a long standing debate to diversify trade more and more with other nations. This is not always the definitive outcome of pursuing mercantilist policies, but it is usualy the most likely.

 

[History_Buff]

Again, breaking agreements that are no longer in your interest does not make you a less reliable partner, because, as long as you are rational, your behavior can still be predicted.

So it's cool if I go to a bank, borrow money to buy a car, then refuse to pay them back, just because I'd be better off if I just kept the money?

 

[Alpine Trooper]

At the end of the day the Canadian dollar has just closed its highest since 1978. The economy is operating at full capacity and diversification of our industry and natural resources has never been as great. Today less Canadians travel to the United States, despite the advantage of our dollar, because they no longer want the hassle or care to buy American. We control the worlds second largest oil reserves, and western Canada is in Boom Times.

This 4 billion dollars being returned to Canada just makes it even better, because we have learned over the past eight years to move our markets internationally. We've decreased our dependence on the consuming American market and have ultimately come out on top.

The United States is the complete opposite of Canada right now. We are booming, they are falling into greater deficit and economic peril. The American Dollar is no longer the standard, and is about to be eclipsed by a country with a mere 30 million people.

NAFTAs time is limited.

 

[bhsup]

On behalf of the USA, I wish to apologize to all Canadians for this travesty. Stiffing you all of this $1,000,000,000 is just wrong. Regardless of how I may feel about international trade agreements in general, we made a deal and we should have stuck to it.

 

[jamiethearcher]

On behalf of the USA, I wish to apologize to all Canadians for this travesty. Stiffing you all of this $1,000,000,000 is just wrong. Regardless of how I may feel about international trade agreements in general, we made a deal and we should have stuck to it.

The problem isn't that you aren't giving us the money, the problem is that our prime minister told you it was ok to keep it

You don't need to apologize for our PM being a weak-kneed wimp.

PS. These comments are coming from a dyed in the wool Tory, so you should be able to tell I am super pissed at Harper on this.

 

[sysyphus]

Still, it's heartening to see the responses of the Americans here (except SN), that they are being supportive of us. Makes me feel that this incident is not par for the course and that overall the USA is an honourable country and that fair trade between our two countries is still a real possibility.

 

[Zelig]

Again, breaking agreements that are no longer in your interest does not make you a less reliable partner, because, as long as you are rational, your behavior can still be predicted.

Yeah, but it doesn't matter if you believe this, what matters is whether your partners do think you're reliable, arguing with them isn't going to help matters.

 

[Che Guava]

On behalf of the USA, I wish to apologize to all Canadians for this travesty. Stiffing you all of this $1,000,000,000 is just wrong. Regardless of how I may feel about international trade agreements in general, we made a deal and we should have stuck to it.

On behalf of Canada, I accept!

Seriously, though, like jamie, I blame harper more than the US....